Andrew Lansley: pride before a fall
Friday, March 16, 2012 at 10:04 Health Secretary Andrew Lansley is "proud" that the UK is to be the first country in Europe to consult on plain packaging.
Addressing the Royal College of Physicians, Lansley said: “Being the first will give us a great chance to shape policy."
Not a ringing endorsement for leaving well alone, is it?
And why the obsession with being first? Tobacco control advocates seem to think it's a badge of honour, whatever the impact. If Britain becomes the first country in Europe to introduce plain packaging it would mean that consumers and retailers are effectively guinea pigs for what is little more than a vanity project.
Surely we should wait, observe and learn from what happens elsewhere? But no, Lansley (like other politicians before him) wants to be associated with a "first" so this bland career politician can put it on his CV.
The good news is that "Everyone will be able to respond to the consultation, including manufacturers and retailers".
That's good of him!
But wait, that's not the full quote. What Lansley actually said was:
"Everyone will be able to respond to the consultation, including manufacturers and retailers, but everyone who responds will be asked about their links with the tobacco industry.
“We won’t be engaging with manufacturers on this as we don’t have any common ground. Tobacco is not like alcohol. There is no responsible level of tobacco consumption. There are no two ways about it - smoking kills and we have to reduce it.”
Does that sound like a man who is approaching the 'public' consultation with an open mind?
Answers on a postcard to the Department of Health.
Reader Comments (9)
At the end of the article, there is this:
<blockquote cite="Anything that can be seen can be counterfeited, which is why focusing on the things that cannot be seen, such as invisible ink and holograms, will be key."
What is that nonsense about? Are they really suggesting that packs should have invisible ink on it, as if that is going to deter counterfeiters? How is the average consumer going to be able to see this invisible ink to know if he has a legit product?
These people are insane.
"Everyone will be able to respond to the consultation, including manufacturers and retailers"
Place bets now.
Tobacco Retailers Concerns ‘Air-Brushed Out’ By Government, UK
4 Dec 2008
“Members of the Tobacco Retailers Alliance, a coalition of 25,000 independent retailers, have expressed outrage that their views were excluded from a Government report into retail displays of tobacco.
In a report on the Future of Tobacco Control consultation published on Tuesday 9th December 2008, the Department of Health appears to have deliberately omitted evidence offered by the Tobacco Retailers Alliance.
Ken Patel, Leicester retailer and National Spokesman for the Tobacco Retailers Alliance, said: “First the Minister refused to meet with retailers, now they have censored our formal response to a public consultation.”
Campaign Manager Katherine Graham said; “We are not listed as one of the respondents although our response was submitted by email and also sent by post, so we can be certain it was received. For some reason the views of 25,000 shopkeepers just seem to have been air-brushed out of the consultation report.”
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/132901.php
"Everyone will be able to respond to the consultation, including manufacturers and retailers".
I've just been reading about the "Delphi Technique" here:
http://www.vlrc.org/articles/110.html
Which illustrates the worthlessness of "public consultation".
They've already decided that plain packaging will be foisted on us. Any consultations are mere window dressing to placate the objectors.
I find it very hard to reply to a consultation which seems to
set it's own goalposts. Would it be in a maifesto.?
"We won't be engaging with manufacturers on this as we don't have any common ground. Tobacco is not like alcohol. There is no responsible level of tobacco consumption. There are no two ways about it - smoking kills and we have to reduce it."
That sentence just about sums up Lansley - It is ignorant to say the least!
Some years ago all motor vehicles had mascots on their bonnets - they also had heavy metal bumpers. It was found out that these items caused considerable damage and in some cases, death to anyone being hit by a car. So the Government and the car manufacturers got together and worked out how to make cars safer. We do not have mascots and heavy metal bumpers any more - thanks to a sensible Government listening to the manufacturers and working with them.
When Lansley talks of "no common ground" what on earth does he mean? The Government is earning an absolute fortune from tobacco manufacturers - surely that on its own is a common enough ground to start talks on? When you perceive someone to be your enemy and refuse to even talk to him, you lose your argument and any credibility you might have had to begin with. This type of gung-ho attitude belongs in a school playground not the Houses of Parliament!
Lansley carries on his pathetic argument by stating that there is no responsible level of tobacco consumption so we have to reduce it.
If what Mr Lansley is saying is true, then he should be talking to the manufacturers and trying to get them to make safer tobacco products - not stamping his feet like a naughty child and saying he is not talking to them!
As we all know, there are so many things in this life, which are not thought to be safe in one form or another, but the answer to reducing possible harm does not lie in hiding these things under the proverbial counter and demonising anyone that uses them, it lies with talking - consulting - and educating!
They (antis) refuse to talk because they know that, as in most Court cases, they will lose the debate. They lost it for years which explains the need for their subterfuge.
As in, erm... there's no safe level of LIFE, Andrew, anything may happen, at any time, even to medics and public Health officials. Enjoy it whilst you can.
So, when's the date for the debate with Stephen Williams...?
Everyone allowed to respond? Really? I don’t see “consumers” or “customers,” and certainly not “smokers” included on the list.
Also, how can they be inviting, on the one hand, “everyone including manufacturers and retailers” to respond, whilst at the same time categorically refusing to “engage with manufacturers?” One wonders exactly which “manufacturers” will be allowed a say. Manufacturers of plastic cups? Of cars? Of face cream? Of chocolate?
Oh, of course – manufacturers of nicotine replacement products. So, no bias there, then. Silly me! I should have guessed!
Reminds you a bit of Saddam Hussain's elections, doesn't it - 99.9% for the great leader, 0% against, 0.01% spoiled ballots.